The analogies fail because the copyrighted material were not used for creating the copy machine, Illustration, or (maybe?) the keyboard suggestion engine. If LLMs were produced ethically, then the whole discussion is moot. But if the only way to produce copyrighted material requires being trained on copyrighted material, then...
> even pirated material
If you knowingly use pirated content for any purpose, that's not legal.
> Distribution of copyrighted material is prohibited.
Copying without distribution is also an exclusive right under copyright -- the one for which the whole area of law is named -- and, as such, prohibited without a license or a specific exception in law.
> Reading, watching, listening, etc, it is not.
To the extent that reading, watching, listening, etc. involves copying, and that copying is neither explicitly licensed nor implicitly licensed by, e.g., a sale of copy where reading, watching, listening, etc., by means that inherently involve such an act of copying is clearly an intended use, is effectively prohibited because of the unauthorized copying involved.
> A copyright holders tort is with the infringing distributor, not the end user.
It is often with both, though the infringing distributor is (1) generally more likely to have ability to pay which makes tort action worth pursuing, (2) generally likely to be involved in more acts subject to liability increasing the tort liability, making tort action more worth pursuing, (3) less likely to be seen as a sympathetic figure by a jury should they invoke their right to a jury trial, (4) likely to be subject to greater liability per offense under the statutory damage alternative, even if the actual damages would be similar were that option pursued instead.
Copyright law applies to distribution of output, not input.
An artist, writer, whoever, could read all the copyrighted material in the world, even pirated material, unless their output is a copy or copyrighted artifact, then there is no infringement.